IJEIT Vol. 1 No.

1 Oct 2009

Performance Evaluation and Simulation of Mobile Ad-hoc Network Routing

Protocols

Vikas Singla ,Rakesh Singla ,Ajay Kumar

Abstract: A mobile Ad hoc network (MANET) is formed by a group of autonomous mobile nodes connected by
wireless links, in which there is no backbone infrastructure. Many routing protocols with competing features have
been developed for wireless ad hoc networks. These protocols have varying qualities for different wireless routing
aspects. Amongst the most popular ones are Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV), Destination-Sequenced
Distance-Vector Routing protocol (DSDV), Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR) , and Optimum Link State
Routing (OLSR). In this paper we present our observations regarding the performance comparison of the DSR,
DSDV and AODV protocols for CBR traffic in mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). We perform extensive
simulations, using NS-2 simulator. In this paper, three main issues will be addressed. The first is ‘Which routing
protocol provides a better performance in Mobile Ad hoc Networks?’ This question addresses the overall
performance of each routing protocol . The second issue addresses the factors that influence the performance of
these routing protocols. Finally yet importantly, the major differences in the routing protocols under study will be
addressed. In trying to answer these questions, MANET scenarios with varying traffic loads and mobility scenarios
were modeled and the performance of AODV, DSR, and DSDV protocols with respect to packet delivery ratio, end-
to-end delay, and normalized routing load. The performance of the routing protocol will greatly depend on various
factors such as network load and mobility effect

Keywords--- MANET, Routing, Ad-hoc, Protocol, Performance, Simulation, AODV, DSR, DSDV.

I. INTRODUCTION the increasing popularity of mobile devices and wireless

Advances in wireless technology and portable computing
along with demands for greater user mobility have
provided a major impetus toward development of an
emerging class of self-organizing, rapidly deployable
network architectures referred to as ad-hoc networks. An
ad-hoc network is a collection of wireless mobile nodes
dynamically forming a temporary network without the aid
of any established infrastructure or centralized
administration. Ad-hoc networks are expected to play
important role in future commercial and military settings
where mobile access to a wired network is either
ineffective or impossible. Potential applications for this
class of network include instant network infrastructure to
support collaborative computing in temporary or mobile
environments, emergency rescue networks for disaster
management, remote control of electrical appliance,
communication systems such as IVC (Inter-Vehicle
Communications) [10], and mobile access to the global
Internet.
Ad hoc wireless networks are self-creating, self-
organizing, and self-administrating networks. Ad hoc
networks are used where wired network and mobile
access is either unproductive or not feasible. A
fundamental problem in ad hoc networking is how to
deliver data packets among MNs efficiently without
predetermined topology or centralized control, which is
the main objective of ad hoc routing protocols. Since
mobile ad hoc networks change their topology frequently,
routing in such networks is a challenging task. Moreover,
bandwidth, energy and physical security are limited. With
networks over the past few years, wireless ad-hoc
networks has now become one of the most vibrant and
active fields of communication and networking research.
II. ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Network has been a subject of
extensive research over the past several years. Because of
the fact that it may be necessary to pass several hops
(multi-hop) before a packet reaches the destination, a
routing protocol is needed. Routing protocol has two
functions:
(i) Selection of routes for various source-destination
pairs
(ii) Delivery of messages to their correct
destination.
The second function is conceptually straightforward
using a variety of protocols and data structures (routing
tables).
Ad-hoc routing protocols can be classified based on
different criteria. Depending upon the routing mechanism
employed by a given protocol, it may fall under more than
one class. Routing protocols for Ad-hoc networking can
be classified into four categories viz. (i) Based on routing
information update routing mechanism (proactive or
table-driven, reactive or on-demand and hybrid
protocols), (ii) Based on the use of Temporal information
(Past Temporal and Future Temporal) for routing, (iii)
Based on routing topology (Flat Topology, Hierarchical

49

Topology), (iv) Based on the Utilization of Specific
Resources (Power Aware Routing and Geographical
Information Assisted Routing) .
2.1 Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR) [4, 6]
The Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol is an on-
demand routing protocol based on source routing. DSR
protocol is composed by two “on-demand” mechanisms,
which are requested only when two nodes want to
communicate with each other. Route Discovery and Route
Maintenance are built to behave according to changes in
the routes in use, adjusting them-selves when needed.
Along with those mechanisms, DSR allows multiple
routes to any destination, thus can lead easily to load
balancing or increase robustness .In the source routing
technique, a sender determines the exact sequence of
nodes through which to propagate a packet. The list of
intermediate nodes for routing is explicitly contained in
the packet’s header. In DSR, every mobile node in the
network needs to maintain a route cache where it caches
source routes that it has learned. When a host wants to
send a packet to some other host, it first checks its route
cache for a source route to the destination. In the case a
route is found, the sender uses this route to propagate the
packet. Otherwise the source node initiates the route
discovery process.
2.2 Adhoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) [4, 5, 6,
7]
AODV is a purely reactive routing protocol. In this
protocol, each terminal does not need to keep a view of
the whole network or a route to every other terminal. Nor
does it need to periodically exchange route information
with the neighbor terminals. Furthermore, only when a
mobile terminal has packets to send to a destination does
it need to discover and maintain a route to that destination
terminal. In AODV, each terminal contains a route table
for a destination. A route table stores the following
information: destination address and its sequence number,
active neighbors for the route, hop count to the
destination, and expiration time for the table. The
expiration time is updated each time the route is used. If
this route has not been used for a specified period of time,
it is discarded.
2.3 Destination Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing
(DSDV) [8]
The Destination Sequenced Distance Vector Protocol
(DSDV) is a proactive, distance vector protocol which
uses the Bellmann -Ford algorithm. DSDV is a hop-by-
hop distance vector routing protocol, wherein each node
maintains a routing table listing the “next hop” and
“number of hops” for each reachable destination. This
protocol requires each mobile station to advertise, to each
of its current neighbors, its own routing table (for
instance, by broadcasting its entries). The entries in this
list may change fairly dynamically over time, so the
advertisement must be made often enough to ensure that
every mobile computer can almost always locate every
50
IJEIT Vol. 1 No. 1 Oct 2009
other mobile computer of the collection. In addition, each
mobile computer agrees to relay data packets to other
computers upon request. This agreement places a
premium on the ability to determine the shortest number
of hops for a route to a destination we would like to avoid
unnecessarily disturbing mobile hosts if they are in sleep
mode. In this way a mobile computer may exchange data
with any other mobile computer in the group even if the
target of the data is not within range for direct
communication.
III. RANDOM WAYPOINT MOBILITY MODEL
The Random waypoint model is a random-based mobility
model used in mobility management schemes for mobile
communication systems. The mobility model is designed
to describe the movement pattern of mobile users, and
how their location, velocity and acceleration change over
time. Mobility models are used for simulation purposes
when new network protocols are evaluated. In random-
based mobility simulation models, the mobile nodes move
randomly and freely without restrictions. To be more
specific, the destination, speed and direction are all
chosen randomly and independently of other nodes. This
kind of model has been used in many simulation studies.
Two variants, the Random walk model and the Random
direction model are variants of the Random waypoint
model.
In this model, a mobile node moves from its current
location to a randomly chosen new location within the
simulation area, using a random speed uniformly
distributed between [vmin, vmax]. vmin refers to the
minimum speed of the simulation, vmax to the maximum
speed. The Random Waypoint Mobility Model includes
pause times when a new direction and speed is selected.
As soon as a mobile node arrives at the new destination, it
pauses for a selected time period (pause time) before
starting traveling again. A Mobile node begins by staying
in one location for a certain period of time (i.e. pause).
Once this time expires, the mobile node chooses a random
destination in the simulation area and a speed that is
uniformly distributed between [vmin, vmax]. The mobile
node then travels toward the newly chosen destination at
the selected speed. Upon arrival, the mobile node pauses
for a specified period of time starting the process again.
The random waypoint model is the most commonly used
mobility model in the simulation of ad hoc networks. It is
known that the spatial distribution of network nodes
moving according to this model is non uniform. However,
a closed-form expression of this distribution and an in-
depth investigation is still missing. This fact impairs the
accuracy of the current simulation methodology of ad hoc
networks and makes it impossible to relate simulation-
based performance results to corresponding analytical
results. To overcome these problems, it is presented a
detailed analytical study of the spatial node distribution
generated by random waypoint mobility. The movement
 IJEIT Vol. 1 No. 1 Oct 2009

trace of a mobile node using the Random Waypoint 4.3 Average End-To-End Delay
model is shown in figure 3.1. It is considered that a Average End-to-End delay (seconds) is the average time
generalization of the model in which the pause time of the it takes a data packet to reach the destination. This metric
mobile nodes is chosen arbitrarily in each waypoint and a is calculated by subtracting “time at which first packet
fraction of nodes may remain static for the entire was transmitted by source” from “time at which first data
simulation time. packet arrived to destination”. This includes all possible
delays caused by buffering during route discovery
latency, queuing at the interface queue, retransmission
delays at the MAC, propagation and transfer times. This
metric is significant in understanding the delay introduced
by path discovery.
V. SIMULATION AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
In this paper, we have taken two different scenarios. In
the first scenario four different pause times have been
taken i.e. 0, 5, 10 and 15 seconds. In the second scenario,
no. of nodes have been varied and performance
comparisons has been made between AODV, DSR and
DSDV protocols. Identical mobility and traffic scenarios
are used across protocols to gather fair results.
Fig 3.1: Traveling pattern of a mobile node using Random 5.1 Test Scenario 1
Waypoint Mobility
In the first scenario, We have chosen the simulation of
IV. PERFORMANCE METRICS [2] 100 nodes in 1000X1000 square meter area. Parameters
Mobile ad hoc networks have several inherent of this scenario are summarized in table 5.1. We have
characteristics (e.g. dynamic topology, time-varying and used CBR sources that started at different times because
bandwidth constrained wireless channels, multi-hop we want to get a general view of how routing protocol
routing, and distributed control and management). Design behaves, rather than TCP sources which use flow control
and performance analysis of routing protocols used for and retransmission feature.
mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is currently an active Table 5.1: Simulation Parameters for Test Scenario 1
area of research. To judge the merit of a routing protocol, Parameter Value
one needs metrics—both qualitative and quantitative-- Number of nodes 100
with which to measure its suitability and performance. Maximum Speed 20 m/s
Specifically, this paper evaluates the performance Simulation time 200 sec
comparison of AODV, DSR and DSDV routing protocols Pause Time 0,5,10, 15 sec
on the following performance metrics: Average routing
Environment Size 1000x1000
overhead, Packet delivery ratio and end-to-end delay.
Packet Size 512 bytes
4.1 Average Routing Overhead
Average routing overhead is the total number of routing Traffic Type Constant Bit Rate
packets divided by total number of delivered data packets. Packet Rate 2 packet/sec (1 kbps)
This metric provides an indication of the extra bandwidth 5.2 Test Scenario 2
consumed by overhead to deliver data traffic. It is crucial In the second scenario, the traffic as well as the scenario
as the size of routing packets may vary. The routing file is generated in the similar manner. Parameters of this
overhead describes how many routing packets for route scenario are summarized in table 5.2. In third scenario,
discovery and route maintenance need to be sent in order no. of nodes is varied and all the other parameters have
to propagate the CBR packets. It is an important measure been constant.
for the scalability of a protocol. It for instance determines,
if a protocol will function in congested or low-bandwidth Table 5.2: Simulation Parameters for Test Scenario 2
situations, or how much node battery power it consumes Parameter Value
4.2 Packet Delivery Ratio
Number of nodes 25, 50, 75, 100
Packet delivery ratio is calculated by dividing the number
Maximum Speed 20 m/s
of packets received by the destination through the number
of packets originated by the application layer of the Simulation time 200 sec
source (i.e. Constant Bit Rate (CBR)). It specifies the Pause Time 0 sec
packet loss rate, which limits the maximum throughput of Environment Size 1000x1000
the network. The better the delivery ratio, the more Packet Size 512 bytes
complete and correct is the routing protocol. Traffic Type Constant Bit Rate

51
 IJEIT Vol. 1 No. 1 Oct 2009

Packet Rate 2 packet/sec (1 kbps) idea of the extra bandwidth that is required to deliver the
data packets.
5.3 Impact on Packet Delivery Ratio Average routing ove rhe ad
Based on the scenarios mentioned above, different “Scene
files” as well as “Traffic files” were generated and 70000

comparisons were made. The performance graphs Fig 5.1 60000

Routing overhead
and 5.2 illustrates the Packet delivery ratio for AODV, 50000

DSR and DSDV protocols. 40000 AODV

DSR
It can be seen that: 30000 DSDV

 AODV has Packet delivery ratio independent of 20000

change in pause time or no. of nodes. AODV achieves a 10000

packet delivery ratio between 85 to 100% for both test 0

0 5 10 15
scenarios. Paus e tim e

Packet Delivery ratio

Fig 5.3 : Average routing overhead when varying Pause
100 time(Scenario 1)
# of packets received / #

90
80
of packets sent

70 Average routing ove rhead

60 AODV
50 DSR 35000

40 DSDV 30000

Routing overhead
30
25000
20
AODV
20000
10 DSR
15000
0 DSDV

0 5 10 15 10000

5000
Pause tim e
0
25 50 75 100

# of node s
Fig 5.1: Packet Delivery Ratio with varying Pause
time(Scenario 1)
Fig 5.4 Average routing overhead when varying no. of
Packet Delivery ratio nodes(Scenario 2)
It can be seen that:
120
 DSR exhibits the highest average routing overhead
# of packets received /#

100
because of its route cache property. It generates the
of packets sent

80
60
40
20
0 declining as pause time is increased.
25 50 75
# of nodes
Fig 5.2 Packet Delivery Ratio with varying # of
nodes(Scenario 2)
 DSDV also has a stable packet delivery ratio for
change in pause time and no. of nodes but it is the lowest
among all three protocols.
 Change in no. of nodes has no effect on DSR’s
Packet Delivery ratio. But for change in pause time, it
declines rapidly but later gets stable. DSR also achieves a
packet delivery ratio between 85 to 100% for change in
no. of nodes. When change in pause time , packet delivery
ratio falls between 45 to 80%.
5.4 Impact on Average Routing Overhead
Fig 5.3 and 5.4 Illustrates the performance graphs for
average routing overhead required by all three protocols
when subjected to varying scenarios. This metric gives an
AODV
highest no. of routing packets but its loss of packets is
DSR also more. DSR’s routing load increases in both scenarios.
DSDV
 AODV’s routing overhead gradually increases in
case change in no. of nodes is applied. However, it starts
100
 DSDV is independent of change in pause time and
no. of nodes. Routing overhead is lowest and constant in
both test cases because of its table-driven nature.
However, it gradually increases a bit for change in no. of
nodes.
5.5 Impact on End-To-End Delay
Fig. 5.5 and 5.6 describes the average end-to-end delay of
DSR, AODV and DSDV protocols. Average end-to-end
delay is the average time it takes a data packet to reach
from source to destination. As route failure occurs, it
takes longer for a data packet to reach its desired
destination resulting in higher end-to-end delay.

52
 IJEIT Vol. 1 No. 1 Oct 2009

DSDV performs better than AODV and DSR. AODV

Average end to end delay
follows DSDV closely for average routing overhead. For
4.5
average end-to-end delay metric, the performance of
4
DSDV and AODV is quite similar to each other. DSR
performs poorly for this metric. From the comparison and
end to end delay

3.5

3 analysis, it can be concluded that the overall performance

AODV
2.5
DSR
of AODV protocol is better among all three. DSR
2
DSDV performs averagely for change in pause time and no. of
1.5
nodes. DSDV performs worst for the variation of all test
1
scenarios.
0.5

0
Future work will be to evaluate the performance of
0 5 10 15 MANET routing protocols under TCP traffic under
pause tim e different Mobility models. New Protocols can also be
implemented to improve the performance.
Fig 5.5 Average end-to-end when varying Pause time
(Scenario1) REFERENCES
[1] Ahmed S. and Ramani A. K., “Exploring the
Average end to end delay Requirements for QoS in Mobile Ad hoc Networks,”
Journal of Information & Communication Technology
1.4
Vol. 1, No. 2, (Fall 2007) 01-09
1.2
[2] Aziz S. R. A., Endut N. A., Abdullah S. and Daud
end to end delay

1
AODV
0.8
DSR
0.6
DSDV
0.4
0.2
0 wireless ad hoc network routing protocols,” ,ACM/IEEE
25 50 75 100
# of nodes
Fig 5.6 Average end-to-end when varying no. of nodes
(Scenario 2)
Performance graphs illustrate that:
 End-to-end delay in AODV is not affected by change
in pause time. It is affected when no. of nodes is changed;
however, it gets stable as the no. of nodes is increased. Its
performance is at par with DSDV.
 DSDV performs better than DSR and AODV as far
as average end-to-end delay is concerned. End-to-end
delay in DSDV is independent of any change in pause
time or no. of nodes. It is lowest and most stable in both
test scenarios.
 DSR is the most affected. Its end-to-end delay is
highest.
VI. CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK
This study was conducted to evaluate the performance
three MANET protocols i.e. DSR, AODV and DSDV
based on CBR traffic. These routing protocols were
compared in terms of Packet delivery ratio, Average
routing overhead and Average end-to-end delay when
subjected to change in pause time and varying no. of
nodes. Simulation results show that AODV performs
better in terms of packet delivery ratio. DSR has the
second highest packet delivery ratio among the three
protocols. DSDV performs the poorest in terms of packet
delivery ratio. In terms of average routing overhead
M. N. M., “Performance evaluation of AODV, DSR and
DYMO routing protocol in MANET”, CSSR 08-09, 14 -
15 March 2009.
[3] Broch J., Maltz D. A., Johnson D. B., Hu Y. C.,
and Jetcheva J., “A performance comparison of multi-hop
International Conference on Mobile Computing and
Networking (MOBICOM’98), October 1998, pp. 85–97.
[4] Das S. R., Perkins C. E., Royer E. M. and
Marina M. K., “Performance comparison of two on-
demand routing protocols for ad hoc networks,” IEEE
Personal Communications Magazine, special issue on
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 16–29,
February 2001
[5] Huang R., Zhuang Y., Cao Q., “Simulation and
Analysis of Protocols in Ad Hoc Network”, 2009
International Conference on Electronic Computer
Technology © 2009 IEEE
[6] Perkins C. E., Ad Hoc Networking, ed. Addison-
Wesley, 2000
[7] Perkins C. E. and Royer E. M., “Ad-Hoc On-Demand
Distance Vector Routing, Mobile Computing Systems and
Applications,” Proc. IEEE Workshop Mobile Computing
Systems & Applications (WMCSA ’99), pp. 90-100, 1999.
[8] Perkins C. E. and Bhagwat P., “Highly Dynamic
Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV)
for Mobile Computers”, SIGCOMM 94 -8/94 London
England UK @ 1994 ACM 0-89791 -682-4/94/0008.
[9] Royer E. M. and Toh C. K., “A review of current
routing protocols for ad hoc mobile wireless networks”
IEEE Personal Communications, 6(2):46–55, April 1999.
[10] Singla Vikas, Singla Rakesh, “An Advance
Approach to Vehicular Ad-hoc Network Security”
International Conference on Sensors and Related
Networks(SENNET-07)”, December 2007.

53